ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Sometimes people who care too much about grammar read things in ways that absolutely no one else does. I mean I'm just saying this apropos of nothing.

yeah to me it's like they're talking about a yearly survey of how many new computers have usb ports, and in almost all years most computers have them

xpost yeah well, it really helps people understand stuff even if they aren't conscious of it! though not in this case, i'd agree

side note, but yuck at "feature" as the verb there.

most computers have usb ports = 5 words instead of 11.

yeah the use of "will" in that context is annoying too. fire this person.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dZ7_o8ElbQoC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=j.m.+coetzee+andre+breton+essay&source=bl&ots=M1NQ2KnBgQ&sig=NoIqyHlKQQg3WkoSGAibp07Fo0s&hl=en&ei=odQmS5XnNIuEswOi6cGpDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Well look, I think most people who care a lot about grammar are able to look at a sentence and see two separate levels of it: there's the thing you know the sentence wants to mean (and which 99% of readers will understand without much problem), and then there's the thing the sentence actually technically means, per the words used and the conventions of grammar and all that.

I.e., it's not like people who care about grammar are weird or blind to what the sentence wants to mean -- in most cases just about everybody gets what the sentence is trying to say -- but it can be irritating and/or funny when there's too big of a gap between what the sentence means and what it actually says, functionally, technically. Or at least I know that I personally don't get much interested by bad grammar/usage because it's "breaking a rule," I get interested when a sentence clearly wants to say "I bought a cat" but it's so ill-formed that it actually says "a cat bought me" or something. (Cf the sentence I was talking about last week where all users of the sexual-health product were having sex with the same woman.)

yeah bad grammar in conversation or on the internet doesn't bother me most of the time. because i use it too. but in some contexts it's like do you ever read english? this is your job?? you're a lawyer and you're gonna file this? bleh

i started like 3 posts in a row with "yeah"

4 if you count the xpost :)

lol @ nabisco's breakdown of "typically" - agree that it should be axed tho

OK, this isn't a question, but a pet peeve: I received this email today at work. The sender is a company vice-president with a 20-year career in our industry, which is in the corporate communications/public relations field. He also speaks three languages fluently. And yet I get an email like this, with the expectation that I am going to read, understand and respond to it without getting a migraine. (Product names redacted.)

Hi Phil...happy holidays to ya... while I know there will not be a drop down for xxxxxx... will you be using what I wrote for xxxxxx -- I feel so strong about it because it really helps clients and prospects understand what the best choices are for health-related stories -- and again it all depends on the nature of that story... health/biz news... or health-features or health-related public policy... I think we have an amazing story to tell...but it gets lost and there's a lot of health-related copy on xxxxx...a lot of it! because we don't tell it like it needs to be told...

I've been transcribing some interviews and this is something that's been coming up a bit - what is the correct way to punctuate multiple direct quotes ending in question marks in a single sentence? Like for example, if someone says, "He would ask things like, 'Why are we doing this?' and 'What is this about?' all the time." Having the question marks at mid-sentence seems wrong or I feel like there should be commas at the end of a quote if it's not the end of a sentence. Or am I just overthinking this?

I feel so strong about it

This is the inevitable outcome of having "I feel bad" and "I feel badly" both acceptable

I don't actually mind that email though.

Having the question marks at mid-sentence seems wrong or I feel like there should be commas at the end of a quote if it's not the end of a sentence.

Nah, the way you punctuated it looks fine to me.

yup, the way you've done it looks grand, so.

This is the inevitable outcome of having "I feel bad" and "I feel badly" both acceptable

What's amazing about this is that people who say "badly" tend to do it sort of pointedly, in the belief that it's the more correct version -- even though, with almost any other word, people know to use the adjective and would find the adverb ridiculous-sounding.

As far as tracing it back goes, I think a lot of this might stem from the fact that -- in terms of common how's-it-going questions -- the word "well" can be either an adjective or an adverb

can "monstrosity" be used in a neutral context?

i don't think so
i would choose another word unless there's some kind of context making it clear it's a good thing. but i can't imagine one, i think it's always a negative word.

At a stretch, one might conceivably use it neutrally to describe something which is distinguished mainly by monstrous size, but some negative connotations would no doubt accompany the word in any event.

"webevent" as one word, REALLY? (appears to be one of these trademark turned generic words)

we be ventin'

While I do consider myself a Grammar Fiend, I am a little bit confused over the usage of "its" and "it's".

possessive vs contraction, unless im forgetting more

i always just remember it as it's = it is, i mean that's what i say in my head. contractions need apostrophes and possessives don't need them (i.e., hers, whose). that's my mnemonic device.

Guys, I think he's just quoting the OP.

oh, i thought he was a genuine grammar fiend and wanted help. now i feel stupid.

That means he would not get a winners or losers' share

Is that the correct use of apostrophe? I mean, I know the share is also the winners' share, but I was working on the analogy of, say, 'He would not get his mum or dad's share'. No, wait, I think I've answered the question myself now - that's not a good analogy. Apostrophes for both, right?

i hate shit like that, i never know how to do it. i'd say apostrophes for both because it makes sense but i hate hate how slightly awkward it always feels.

If it were singular you wouldn't say "winner or loser's share", would you? Therefore apostrophes for both.

Yep, I've gone with apostrophes for both, but you're right, it's one of those ones that just niggles no matter which way you turn it.

xpost

Yep, thanks Zelda, obvious when you put it like that - I tied myself in a knot thinking about it and just ended up making a cup of tea instead.

AP style for possessives is like:

Mike, John, and Martin's company

so following that rule it seems like it would be "winner or loser's share" and thus "winners or losers' share," but there could be some exception I don't know about

I guess the difference is that the winner's share and loser's share are separate things, while there is just one company that belongs to Mike, John, and Martin?

I think that's what it is, yes. That's why the mum and dad analogy wasn't right.

Mike, John, and Martin's company

That's rather ambiguous, though, because instead of talking about a company that belongs to Mike, John and Martin, you could be talking about two people (Mike and John) and one company (which belongs to Martin).

Ok, RESUMES: Third person or First person?

I.e. do you write "performs research for litigation" or "perform research for litigation"?

why would you use third person for yr resume

kinda yeah what que said

"Perform research," but I hadn't really thought about it as first-person vs. third-person, it's just the convention.

Depends--what is it that's being resumed?

For talking about my current job, I tend to make verbs into nouns, so 'performance of' rather than 'perform' or 'performs'. For past jobs, it's past-tense, ie. 'led project x to completion' or whatever. I have no idea what kind of rationale might be behind this - it's just the way I've always done it.

why not just 'research for litigation'

I use lots of -ings in my CV. I'm so crap at grammar terminology I don't know what they're called. Gerunds? Present participles? Anyway - them.

"Please note that our unit is based in __________Offices (as per above address), and not ______________, to where your correspondence has been addressed. "

fuck's sake someone pls

"We have moved. Please use our new address: _____________"

hmp i'm trying to zing a snotty solicitor who wants a reply yesterday to letters he's sending to the wrong address tomorrow. redrafted it anyway.

ha, ok. "Wrong Addresses Never Knowingly Expedite Replies"

Further unctious correspondence, knowingly erroneous, receives silence

am i cray-zay to think that when people say "to coin a phrase" right after they've used a HUGE CLICHE that it makes no sense???

are they saying this on Opposite Day?

no unless EVERY DAY is OPPOSITE DAY